Dangerous Caches

[+Spencersb]

So your telling me that ALL CACHES should be approved regardless of the danger factor regardless if its beyond the limits of someone who doesnt know thier limts?

There's only so much you can do to protect stupid people from themselves. Just because a cache would be dangerous for ME to do doesn't AUTOMATICALLY make it too dangerous to list. The point is, if you give someone, anyone, the authority to decide what's "too dangerous," you are necessarily going to prevent some caches that, for a reasonably able, properly informed geocacher, are no more dangerous than driving to the store. And conversely, if you set a limit, and don't set it low enough, are you not then liable if someone who shouldn't be trusted to leave the house by themselves, does something stupid and gets hurt? Deciding for everyone what is too dangerous is sort of like putting up a railing beside a cliff. If there's no railing, but I post a sign that says "Danger, cliff," and someone purposefully walks closer than common sense would dictate and falls, it's not my fault. But if I install a railing, and someone leans on it and falls because I didn't install it properly, then I'd better have a good lawyer! I'm not going to hide a cache that's particularly dangerous, but I'm also not going to exalt myself to say that no one else can.

 

What about an ammo can hung on a rope above an alligator pit? Steve Corwin would call it Nirvana! I would simply say, "not me, buddy!" and go my way.

 

There's been enough insulting and demeaning to go around. I can't for the life of me see why this seems so important. Some people will refuse to do something they otherwise want to do, simply because they think someone told them they HAD to do it. And some people will HAVE to do something they otherwise DON'T want to do, simply because someone else said they couldn't.

 

It's just a game.

[+zygote2k]

" It's just a game". This is by far the most brilliant answer to ALL the questions regarding Geocaching as a whole. My hat is off to you.

[+Spencersb]

" It's just a game". This is by far the most brilliant answer to ALL the questions regarding Geocaching as a whole. My hat is off to you.

And this was more useful?

 

[+nittany dave]

So would you be ok for your 12 yr old son to do a cache that has no business being listing when it states you have a chance from being killed?

No. Would I - yes. You were talking about protecting less intelligent people (your words, not mine) not minors.

All for what?

Because it must sound like an interesting cache to me, regardless of what you or anyone else thinks about it.

That listing is ok with you?

Yes. And I've done others that had a very real risk of serious injury or death and they said so on the cache pages. I like the challenge. Most I have done with others as a team effort. Some I would not have tried alone.

Everything has limits and boundarys.

And so does everyONE. Live within yours don't dictate mine. I know you're not trying to, I'm just making a general statement. I have yet to see a cache listed (either referenced here or browsing around the site for a few years) that I thought should not have been listed due to it being too dangerous. Maybe, just maybe the reviewers and Groundspeak are already doing this without need of a specific rule or line in the sand.

Still for the last time since you dont seem to understand. NO ONE IS TELLING YOU WHAT TO DO OR NOT TO DO.

OK, but you are asking us if someone (Groundspeak) should and where we think the line would/should be and I think the consensus here is a resounding no they should not any more than they already do. I'm sure that the reviewers do apply some common sense and for all we know they may have rejected many caches that they felt were too dangerous. As I said, I have yet to see a cache listing that I thought was too dangerous to be listed even though I've seen caches that I felt were too dangerous for me.

 

edited for grammer, it must be catching.

Edited December 31, 2004 by nittany dave

[+Renegade Knight]

There is some interesting back and forth in this topic since last time I looked.

 

The first problem if you have to define exactly what a dangerouse cache is. Then if you can do that, and you have a bright line test that works, someone has to be in charge of doing that test on eache cache. If they screw up, now they are responsible for the result.

 

Now, I don't want that job, and this site can't afford the job. So who is going to do it? Nobody. But that's not literally true. If nobody else will asssume responsbility for you when you seek a cache that leaves you to do it for yourself.

 

Everything about this hobby needs to stay that way. Seekers assume all risks in trying to find a cache. There are enough laws in place to where someone seeking to cause intensional harm will be hung up to dry.

 

The bright line test for cache danger doesn't exist. Even if it were invented, it's not feasable because to list a cache would take a personal visit and inspection. A listing site can't go there. It's not viable. Not for the numbers of caches out there.

[+Texan78]

Yes. And I've done others that had a very real risk of serious injury or death and they said so on the cache pages. I like the challenge. Most I have done with others as a team effort. Some I would not have tried alone.

 

So because they are ok for you that means that are ok and safe for everyone?

 

No. Would I - yes. You were talking about protecting less intelligent people (your words, not mine) not minors.

 

Yes i am and minors as well, some fall in the catagory. You dont ahve to have a metnal problem to not know whats safe and whats not.

 

OK, but you are asking us if someone (Groundspeak) should and where we think the line would/should be and I think the consensus here is a resounding no they should not any more than they already do. I'm sure that the reviewers do apply some common sense and for all we know they may have rejected many caches that they felt were too dangerous. As I said, I have yet to see a cache listing that I thought was too dangerous to be listed even though I've seen caches that I felt were too dangerous for me.

 

Last time i checked this wasnt a extreme sport nor was it intended to be that way. There are places and other interest for people that wanna be extreme, this isnt one of them. I have no problems with mixing the two but within limits and proper cache listing. I dont see this to be family safe for all ages as the misson statement fo this site promotes. Can you show me the guidelines for what caches are to dangerous to not be improved?

 

There's only so much you can do to protect stupid people from themselves. Just because a cache would be dangerous for ME to do doesn't AUTOMATICALLY make it too dangerous to list. The point is, if you give someone, anyone, the authority to decide what's "too dangerous,"

 

So your saying their will NEVER be a cache placed that will not be to dangerous for some without common sense to walk away from?

 

What about an ammo can hung on a rope above an alligator pit? Steve Corwin would call it Nirvana! I would simply say, "not me, buddy!" and go my way.

 

So this cache wouldnt be ok even though is poses the danger of someone being killed?

 

you people keep referring to driving and what not and crossing streets. Those are present dangers of everyday life. Geocaching isnt a everyday present of danger unless prevoked. Yes this is a game that can be regulated by safe caching for everyone, since again last time i checked this isnt a extereme game nor was it intedned to be.

 

If someone wants to try thier luck with death this is the idea i had. Instead of be able to list this extreme caches to anybody can see them. Make a special search listing page that is its own seperate catogry for extreme caches where you have to be 18 it access them and also agree to hitting yes or no on a waiver before seeing them everytime when trying these cache. That takes all liablity off everyone but the cacher. Thats what i mean by a fine line. Like i've been saying im not here to tell people what they should ot should not do or try. but i yet regualting caches from people who have no business doing them that could die and but a bad rep on the game.

 

Sorry for my interest of the well being of people and the advance of this game. I guess this makes me a shallow preson for caring about mine and other peoples loved ones and kids. So i guess we should just take the age limit off cigerettes and liqour and all other dangerous things in the world. I got it, How bout a Gun Machine like the ones that sales cokes.

Edited December 31, 2004 by Texan78

[+nittany dave]

So because they are ok for you that means that are ok and safe for everyone?

No, what I and most others are saying is that I made my own decision and so can you and so can everyone else. The responsibility is on the seeker.

 

Yes i am and minors as well, some fall in the catagory. You dont ahve to have a metnal problem to not know whats safe and whats not.

I'm not even sure I know what you're trying to say here, maybe a spell and grammer checker would help, but like I said, I have yet to see a cache listed that I think should not be listed for safety reasons. I agree with you that it is possible that someone could submit one. Maybe they already have and it wasn't approved. I think the reviewers are doing a good enough job weeding out the caches that don't belong. Parents are responsible for their minor children, not Groundspeak. Adults are responsible for themselves, not Groundspeak - IMO.

 

This is an interesting topic but at this point, we're just restating the same thing over and over. I'm not going to convince you that things are fine the way they are and you're not going to convince me that we need more rules or stricter safety guidelines. So, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on how much we should be looking out for the rest of the world and how much responsibility we should take on our own shoulders. BTW, the whole gun, cigarette thing does nothing for your argument.

Be safe.

[+Texan78]

No, what I and most others are saying is that I made my own decision and so can you and so can everyone else. The responsibility is on the seeker.

 

EXACTLY, what about the ones that cant?

 

So since when does you and a handful of people speak for the rest of the world?

 

 

What about an ammo can hung on a rope above an alligator pit? Steve Corwin would call it Nirvana! I would simply say, "not me, buddy!" and go my way.

 

 

So this cache wouldnt be ok even though is poses the danger of someone being killed?

 

 

 

I'm not even sure I know what you're trying to say here, maybe a spell and grammer checker would help,

 

What does that have to do with anything? I didnt know i was being graded on posting a forum thread. Not to mention a childish and conceited remark that doesnt pertain to this topic.

 

Parents are responsible for their minor children, not Groundspeak. Adults are responsible for themselves, not Groundspeak - IMO.

 

Thats true but Groundspeaks is responisble for the content of this site. Wouldnt these caches be against thier Guidelines and "Code" that are adopting?

Edited December 31, 2004 by Texan78

[+southdeltan]

Thats true but Groundspeaks is responisble for the content of this site. Wouldnt these caches be against thier Guidelines and "Code" that are adopting?

If it was against the listing guidelines, they wouldn't list it.

 

I think you are a bit confused on the "Geocachers Code" - that is not a Groundspeak project - but a private project by private geocachers. You can bet that restricting what people can hide was NOT the intention of the people developing that "code".

 

----

 

You cannot legislate against stupidity.

 

I personally don't know what is good or bad for somebody else - but I know I sure as hell don't want somebody telling me what is good or bad for me. I will read the cache page and decide, or get to the location and decide - it's my choice - not yours or anybody elses.

 

If you think a cache is unsafe for you - don't look for it. If you can't decide what's safe for you, ask your parents to help you

 

Happy caching!

 

sd

[+Texan78]

Wow, this is great to know that geocaching has turned into a extreme sport where i cant even trust my kids to go caching without them running across a cache that them or anyone else can die from that shouldnt be listed in the first place. I know this sport has APPARENT risks that you are aware of when getting into it, but some are just outragous and are a conflict of intrest.

 

I guess its going to take a few people dying from unobtainable caches that have no bussiness being listed before measures are taken to provide safety for geocachers.

 

You might know you own limits, but others dont and if your looking for an extreme sport then go do it, but dont mix the two when it can get into the wrong persons hand.

 

Im done with this dicussion here as i see the people here are very shallow and have no consideration for the well beings of other cachers. Trust me im not alone on this issue. Others just cant stand this site and i see why or they would be voicing thier opinions about it. Luckly for me i have the resources to take this to another level. So i guess we will see what big green has to say when they get bad PR.

 

I understand the code is a private project. I also understand that this site is going to adpot it. Whats the point of having it if no one is going to follow it?

Edited December 31, 2004 by Texan78

[+wimseyguy]

Wow, this is great to know that geocaching has turned into a extreme sport where i cant even trust my kids to go caching without them running across a cache that them or anyone else can die from that shouldnt be listed in the first place.

Actually if you look at the oldest caches, they were ususally more extreme than most of the caches around today. It started as another outdoor recreational activity for folks who like to seriously hike and climb. The urban/suburban easier hides have shown up as the sport has evolved. There are levels of participation for any and all who choose to get involved, from extreme to disabled. We now even have a related website at handicaching.com for individuals who want to list acessable caches on a seperate site.

Today it is just another outdoor activity with open participation, much like mountain/trail biking, hiking, or skiing. Those activity's are all self regulated. No one will test you, or ask to see a permit before allowing you to get on a trail head or slope. You make that decision for yourself. Why do you want it to be so different for geocaching? You have failed to answer that question in your posts.

You might know you own limits, but others dont and if your looking for an extreme sport then go do it, but dont mix the two when it can get into the wrong persons hand.

Huh? What is your point?

Im done with this dicussion here as i see the people here are very shallow and have no consideration for the well beings of other cachers. Trust me im not alone on this issue. Others just cant stand this site and i see why or they would be voicing thier opinions  about it. Luckly for me i have the resources to take this to another level. So i guess we will see what big green has to say when they get bad PR.

Now who is being demeaning? No one has called you names, nor challanged your intellegence. If you are not alone on this issue, why have the majority of the posts in this thread disagreed with you? Finally, why are you just trying to stir up trouble and make threats?

Or are you just enjoying being a troll?

[+BikerMike]

Wow, this is great to know that geocaching has turned into a extreme sport where i cant even trust my kids to go caching without them running across a cache that them or anyone else can die from that shouldnt be listed in the first place. I know this sport has APPARENT risks that you are aware of when getting into it, but some are just outragous and are a conflict of intrest.

 

Your kids go caching without an adult? Do they steal the car while you aren't looking? If kids are too young to drive, they aren't getting to the cache without an adult present. Surely that adult would be able to say, "Hmmm, this cache looks too dangerous, maybe we should try another instead." That's what the parent/adult is for, to make the informed decision. Its not anyone else's job to watch your kids. It's YOUR job.

 

If your kids are old enough to drive, then surely they have the sense to decide on caches. Or maybe the responsible/concerned parent would pre-approve caches for them, or even better, go along with them. Its a bonding experience, geocaching CAN be a family game. I have three teenagers at home myself. If I load them up in the car and say we're going geocaching, they grumble, but as soon as we start closing in on that first cache, they start getting excited and running to see who finds it first.

 

This is a technical game which takes a lot of thinking to pull off and find these caches. If you can do that, then you certainly have the brain power to figure out if a cache should be done, or walked away from. There aren't a whole lot of stupid cachers out there, running the GPSr's, PDAs, computers, etc... shows that...

 

BikerMike

[+Crow T Robot]

It appears that this thread is starting to degrade into name-calling and insults. Please stay on topic and play nice. Thanks.

[+BikerMike]

Wow, this is great to know that geocaching has turned into a extreme sport where i cant even trust my kids to go caching without them running across a cache that them or anyone else can die from that shouldnt be listed in the first place. I know this sport has APPARENT risks that you are aware of when getting into it, but some are just outragous and are a conflict of intrest.

 

I think the true answer to your question is this: Public Opinion

 

If a cache gets approved that is TRULY dangerous, folks start talking it up in the logs, forums, and PM's to each other and the cache owner. One that is truly dangerous won't be out long...As for the one in Washington, I think the logs speak for themselves. While not quite over the line, the dangers are VERY apparent...

 

BikerMike

[+ArmandoM]

If a cache rated five is too dangerous for “some people” lets banned them!

So we have only caches that are rated four good, but you know, I know some guys that could get hurt doing that type of caches so lets get rid of those too.

Hmmm I just remember my cousin Billy he shouldn’t be out there I think a cache rated 3 is too high for him (then again he shouldn't be driving either).

You see if I follow your logic we end up staying home because well, life in general is dangerous.

So my question to you is “where do we draw the line?”

[+Lone Star Drifter]

Jenny/TheGeoGoes

If this is the cache "in question" then I would guess that unfortunately the cacher was more than a bit off in his approach. And, that could certainly happen to anybody.....especially if you weren't from the area and/or weren't familiar with the area the cache was named for and placed in.

 

This is the cache in question and your right I live in Lufkin and have never been to Waco before. I obviously did not approach this cache in the right place!!

"MCC River View" The terrain rating did clearly spell this out, sorry to stir up the hornets nest. And yes I did have alot of fun geocaching in Waco.

Edited January 2, 2005 by firemaneffs

[+DMflyer]

I read this entire thread, had to laugh a few times and have thoroughly enjoyed the frustration and confusion that is displayed.

 

"teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves"

 

I think gc.com DOES have sufficient guidelines for the EXTREME caches. As long as they fall within these guidelines, then I see no reason for them to NOT be approved.

 

As stated several times, the INDIVIDUAL is responsible for their own actions. There are cliffs, steep drop offs, lots and lots of possible places to get hurt and even killed. If you want to SEEK the 5/5 caches, you gotta be willing to take the RISK. If it seems the RISK is too high, back off and regroup.

 

It is very difficult if not impossible to LEGISLATE, MANDATE or REGULATE any kind of common sense. Each attempt at a 5/5 can result in death or serious injury. Do we allow 5/5 caches ? Sure, just with the proper precautions and with the legal liabilities waived.

 

To protect someone else from their own decisions or actions is impossible.

We cannot protect idiots from themselves.

 

As for the comments about teenagers going off and doing something that might get them killed or injured, they don't need a gc.com listing to do that, they are very capable of finding and even seeking those obviously dangerous places to get themselves in trouble - all on their own. ...and might I add, many adults too...

 

So who's liable ? If you agree to the conditions stated on a cache page...

 

"Note:To use the services of geocaching.com, you must agree to the terms and conditions in our disclaimer. " http://www.geocaching.com/about/disclaimer.aspx

 

"Geocaching, hiking, backpacking and other outdoor activities involve risk to both persons and property. There are many variables including, but not limited to, weather, fitness level, terrain features and outdoor experience, that must be considered prior to seeking or placing a Cache. Be prepared for your journey and be sure to check the current weather and conditions before heading outdoors. Always exercise common sense and caution."

 

"Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache."

 

need we say more about dangerous caches ?

[GPS-Hermit]

The hider of a cache might want to consider how obvious the risks are when hiding a cache - I for one would not want to be tricked by the terrain in any way and find out the hard way it is lots more dangerous than it appears. If one is to walk away - the decision might be a visual one and hidden dangers could be an unwelcome mishap. I went on one hike where the rock I was standing on was only about an inch thick above a 30 foot drop and I couldn't tell it from the direction I approached. It really freaked me out when I later found out what I was standing on. It was a huge slab of inch thick rock which might not support alot of weight. I would make sure these type of hidden dangers don't exists before placing a cache. I feel I owe it to my fellows caches to have the risk be as obvious as possible so the decision process is accurate. I don't like being led into area where the terrain will not support my weight and collapses into holes. Lots of loose and unstable surfaces are not a challenge and to me are not worth getting someone hurt. I do feel I am to a reason degree responsible to look over the area and give it a good sanity check and try to evaluate the worse case problems. All I am saying is that I want my finder to work hard finding the cache but not have to work to hard at determining the safety factor. Good judgement can be deceived.

[+Ovair]

Geocaching is great because of its unregulated nature. Less is more. The lack of controls and rules in this venture gives all of us the freedom to enjoy, explore, and express. As soon as anyone decides that a cache is too dangerous and shouldn't be listed, the precedent is set and the decline of geocaching imminent.

 

Rainbow Hydrothermal Vents is named in The Complete Idiots Guide to Geocaching as the most extreme cache. It is at bone crushing depths in the ocean. There are no warnings listed on the web page. I don't believe any are needed. It speaks for itself. I've investigated this just a bit. It is expensive, but there are submarine tours to this area. Certainly danger exsists for this cache. But danger exsists at the local park too, albeit a different kind of danger.

 

Deciding that a cache should not be listed, because of the risk it involves to an individual (different for each face on this Earth), is tantamount to censorship.

 

Where's the line to be drawn? Right here---> All caches should be reviewed for "inaccuracies, bad coordinates, and appropriateness". Because..."as the cache owner, you are responsible for the placement and care of your cache". Thats it. Nothing more.

 

What does that mean? What am I saying? I'm saying all caches should be listed. For who am I to decide what is safe for you? Or you? Or you? And who are you to decide what is safe for me? BTW it costs $25,000 (US) to visit the vents(travel not included).

[+Roland_oso]

After reading the post here and on Texas Geocaching I had to give this cache a shot.

 

Cache could be done by Cub Scouts in the Dark

 

Not knocking the cache, just this thread.

 

Cache is in a great park and i enjoyed the trails and hike.

 

My log for the cache!

[+shawhh]

this topic has been addressed in several other posts. there is an element of risk in every activity that we participate in. the decision to engage or not to engage in any activity is based on our experience, training, and the perception of risk. as long as enough information is provided to make an informed decision then the responsibility lies with the individual. true, there are some who lack the judgement to make a good decision, but that is and will be true of any choice they make. the question is "who will make decisions for us?" and the answer must come from the community. i, and it seems the majority that have responded to your post, feel strongly that the decision should be left up to the individual. when you choose to get in a car and drive to a cache you accept an element of risk. you choose to accept it based on the factors i mentioned earlier. if you go to a cache that requires accepting an element of risk, then you also have to either accept the risk or abandon the activity again based on experience, training, and perception of the risk involved. if you choose poorly then, as in all life experiences, there are consequences, and in some cases those consequences can be dire. however, this is the way all life experiences are. i appreciate the concern you have for the poor wayward cacher, but the only way to grow is to accept risk and there is no way that how much risk to accept can be a "one size fits all". -harry

[+rusty_da_dog]

Rather, I'd prefer that all caches be of the "dangerous" type.

 

Maybe not truly dangerous, but I'd much rather hunt a cache where there is a possibilty that I might fall down a hill, or bang my head on a rock, or otherwise risk personal injury.

 

Frankly, I'm pretty bored of the caches where I can drive up and touch my car and the cache at the same time. I just can't imagine why people hide those.

 

Besides, for pretty much any cache that has a significant terrain rating, it's not a bad idea to have a first aid kit along. You shouldn't have to have the cache placer tell you that.

 

Jamie

Kinda sounds like Jamie hit the nail on the head there......

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

So your telling me that ALL CACHES should be approved regardless of the danger factor regardless if its beyond the limits of someone who doesnt know thier limts?

 

Yep, that's what I am saying! If it's within gc.com's parameters, it's good to go!

 

Driving to the parking lot is more dangerous than going after any cache.

 

Ed

[+Sarg863]

total agreement with nittany dave and wimseyguy.  -harry

I agree!!

[+Sarg863]

Why should I draw a line if cannot show me an example of a cache you think is over "your line"?

 

Im speaking about caches in general, where do you draw the line to keep this game somewhat safe? Have you not read anything i have posted?

 

How about we let people make their own decisions about which caches they want to hunt for, and which ones they would prefer to leave alone.

 

So you dont care if caches are placed that someone who is not smart enough to leave alone could die from?

 

If a cache meets the guidelines established by gc.com,

 

What are those guidelines? Does anyone know. Thats what i've been trying to ask. Instead everyone whats to demean my comments.

 

Smoking, driving a car, drinking alcohol, scuba-diving, juggling chainsaws, eating bacon, river rafting...all of these things are deadly and kill lots of people every year, but I don't feel it's anyone's business to tell me I can't do them if I want to...

 

Some of those have regulations or regulated bodys. No one is telling you what to do and what not to do. It's a issue of safety. Do you not beleive in metal detectors or secruity checks at airports? Some would say thats against admendments righs and thier civil libertys. BUT GUESS WHAT. It's there for peoples safety?

 

 

You seem to be the one looking for the lines and boundries, yet you have yet to offer your definition, or any examples of caches you feel have crossed over it.

 

Still you have failed to answer one simple quetion i have asked. I have given an example, but it was made a mockery of. So thier should be no guidelines set for what is to dagerous, is that what your saying?

 

Some of you might forget, thier are people of ALL ages that play this game. Some teenagers dont know thier limits as well as some adults. We cant keep an eye on our kids 24-7 but yet you want them to be safe. Would you want them or a loved one doing something that good kill them when you have a chance to put a regulation on what is safe and whats not. If you wanna smoke, drink, eat bacon, so be it. But when you have a chance to put a regulation on something and draw a line to keep the game safe and fun for everyone then why not.

 

So once again im going to ask this. What is the line for something you cosider to be unsafe. What are the bounarys, where do you draw the line to help keep people safe? How hard is that to answer. Why do you need an example, do you not have a opinion of your own? You sure seem to use it to mockery of my posts?

 

I think that anyone capable of using a GPSr has enough common sense to not look for a cache that is beyond their physical ability. Kids looking for a cache that is dangerous could happen. That tells me they are not very well supervised. Driving a car is one of the most dangerous things people do. Especially the teenage drivers.

I am not my brothers keeper>

[+Sarg863]

Wow, this is great to know that geocaching has turned into a extreme sport where i cant even trust my kids to go caching without them running across a cache that them or anyone else can die from that shouldnt be listed in the first place. I know this sport has APPARENT risks that you are aware of when getting into it, but some are just outragous and are a conflict of intrest.

 

I guess its going to take a few people dying from unobtainable caches that have no bussiness being listed before measures are taken to provide safety for geocachers.

 

You might know you own limits, but others dont and if your looking for an extreme sport then go do it, but dont mix the two when it can get into the wrong persons hand.

 

Im done with this dicussion here as i see the people here are very shallow and have no consideration for the well beings of other cachers. Trust me im not alone on this issue. Others just cant stand this site and i see why or they would be voicing thier opinions  about it. Luckly for me i have the resources to take this to another level. So i guess we will see what big green has to say when they get bad PR.

 

I understand the code is a private project. I also understand that this site is going to adpot it. Whats the point of having it if no one is going to follow it?

Good LORD!!!

[+Renegade Knight]

Wow, this is great to know that geocaching has turned into a extreme sport where i cant even trust my kids to go caching without them running across a cache that them or anyone else can die from that shouldnt be listed in the first place. I know this sport has APPARENT risks that you are aware of when getting into it, but some are just outragous and are a conflict of intrest....

Your own bathroom is more dangerous than any particular cache. I’d stake money on you having a modern bathroom in spite of the known risks. I’d even wager you’re your bathroom comes complete with the means to slip and crack your skull, electrocute yourself, and a few other means of hurting yourself that I just can’t fathom but which emergency rooms probably could elaborate on.

 

The thing is people use their judgment in using their own bathroom and still get hurt more than any other location including cache sites. I’m not about to tell people pee on the streets any more than I’m going to restrict caches.

[SilverLynx]

I read the first 10 posts and then the flames started rising. so cut right to the end. I am not responding to any particular post, just stating what I think is the obvious.

 

I go geocaching with my 12 & 10 year olds. I always research the cache before I go and find it. If I think its too dangerous for my 10 year old, then we don't go. I might try for it myself later on if I think I can tackle it. The point is, that some people like the extreme caches, and some like the PNG's. I myself prefer the ones with a little jaunt into the woods.

 

Reasearch the caches your going to, and when you get there, revaluate your decision based on what you see. If its takes more than your skill to complete the caches, go to the next one.

 

Get your adrenaline rush but be safe.

 

EDIT: for mispelling

Edited January 28, 2005 by SilverLynx

[Hucklebuck]

Interesting Topic, I think I see your point Texan78

Let me see, we shouldn’t place caches that are too dangerous for some kind of people (the not so smart kind). Ok I can handle that but, how do we measure that?

Let me give an example of a “dangerous cache” if, you were an approver would you approved this cache? This cache is not in Texas but I thing still works for this topic.  Is this to risky?

 

Does anyone want to try this one with me, it's along ride and all but....

[+Geo Dee]

Back to the original question:

Are they worth the risk?

Yes.

[+primofam]

Wow, just read through all these posts.

I wish I lived in Texas!

 

I am tired of the "drive through" type caches.

 

I'm hoping this discussion is closed soon. Although all good comments and ideas, geocaching is a SPORT. It is up to the cacher individually to decide at what level to play the sport.

With the multi thousands of cachers out there, there are many different skill levels. Because I cannot personally make it to a cache that would require hang gliding down to a cliff, repelling, down beside a waterfall, and then scuba diving to find an underwater clue to lead me to a cache, doesn't mean there aren't those that would and could do that type of cache.

 

Who am I to 'legislate' that they cannot. Don't we have enough of that with everything else in this country.

 

All the listings that were listed in this discussion were properly described, in my opinion. At the end of the day, it is up to the individual cacher to assess his/her skill level and see where it meets up with the selected cache. The 'dangerous cache' that was listed describe the risks very well. Here in West Tennessee, we don't have many opportunities like this but I would love to have the opportunity to evaluate and make my own decision about a cache and not have someone else say it is not an appropriate cache.

 

My 10 year old son and I geocache together. And yes, there have been a couple he has not accompanied me after we read the cache description. But, I would rather make that decision than someone else who doesn't know my son's skills. There is a 12 year old girl in our organization who could kick serious rear ends with her abilities. In no way, am I going to limit her hunting because I think it shouldn't be done. Anyway, if my 10 year old wanted to go to one so badly, how would he get there-especially if I have his GPSr at all times until we go caching.

 

It would be caches like these that you could put under your belt and hold your head high. I don't have many caches but I have a handful that I am very honored to have attacked and completed.

 

Again, a very good concern was brought up and well answered by many people. Perhaps this post can be put to bed soon.

[+QDman]

I took a look at Texan78's cache (GCM7K9) and noticed from the logs that one person saw a snake and another person had to jump a creek. Sounds like a pretty dangerous cache to me.

[+nittany dave]

Picking this scab again are we?

[+Honest John & Suzies Jule]

In reading this thread it seems that most of the responders to your question have all given the same answer, in essence. That being, it is up to the individual to determine whether or not a cache is too difficult or dangerous for them to attempt to find it. There is no convenient place to draw that figurative line because it will fall out differently for each and every individual.

 

What happened to the OP?

 

and I hate long posts..

but I like the one above, it says it all___________.

 

[+horsegeeks]

Picking this scab again are we?

Not again, still.....